1st attempt was a republican shooter. He was
2nd attempt didn’t actually happen. They didn’t see Trump or draw their weapon. It was just someone who owned a gun in America.
It’s the republican party who have consistently displayed the attitude that the 2nd amendment is there for this type of thing, not the democrats.
How calm are you about your party doing this?
There are no illusions that politicians are experts.
Authority given to a judge is because of expertise, not in order to represent.
Elect representation, select expertise. Ensure oversight for both situations.
I’ve said before oversight is already in place be a democratically elected official. So stop with the silliness in claiming I’m antidemocratic.
The difference between you and me is you’re sprouting ideology and I’m explaining how a good system actually works in the real world in my country.
Asking millions of unqualified people to pick an expert and professional will not be as successful as an unbiased selection committee.
Not every problem is solvable with a popularity contest.
As long as a committee has democratic oversight democracy can still fix any problems as you wish. But it’s much more efficient and successful most of the time.
Resign from the senate.
Rather than just going back to that job after the campaign.
This campaign is literally zero cost for him as it stands. He’s a senator and will continue being a senator if he loses.
He should be forced to resign for things he’s done and admitted doing publicly.
So the problem with elected judges is the elections.
There are solutions to that. One of which is to appoint.
There are problems with appointed judges in America no doubt. Changes to appointments could definitely solve them. Elections most likely won’t.
Politics is inevitable and unavoidable. Your choice of sandwiches is ultimately political. Let alone judges.
Partisan politics is avoidable.
Avoid partisanship in the justice system and then you solve a lot of problems.
Well if that’s the meaning of "political you’re using then all judges are. That’s why I put it in quotes in my last reply, I assumed you meant partisan. Otherwise you’d have been making an irrelevant point.
Unfortunately the US has a storied history of elected local judges allowing lynchings, for example, while the appointed federal courts passed civil rights so I won’t be taking notes.
Of course the appointed judges and elected judges are now targeting women and minorities. So your appointment system is also broken.
Again, not taking notes.
An attempt to be representative is not equal to being “political”.
It’s actually a strength of the system that minorities get some representation rather than being always voted into zero representatives. And they still have to pass the standards to be considered as experts in the field.
No system is perfect, but look at America. Small area elections for judges produce poor corrupt picks. Large area elections produce partisan fights with extremists campaigning against each other.
There’s no country which is a good advert for directly electing judges.
The UK has an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.
Which can be overruled by an elected official but generally is directed to pick on merit and allowed to do so.
Allowing professionals to pick experts and only stepping in when there is a problem is much better to me than direct elections which quickly become partisan and obstructive to professional candidates.
Holds up Spork
I’m going for UK, specifically Scotland.
In the UK the Conservative party decided to get rid of DEI initiatives in education. When?
When the minority specifically recommended to be targeted for support became poor/working class white boys.
Conservatives will go out of their way to harm the working class because as long as things are going badly for them they’ll be angry enough to vote for the ones with dog whistles pretending it’s someone else’s fault.
When fusion or fission occurs you get new atoms.
It’s Hydrogen that’s existed since the universe cooled enough for electrons and protons to make atoms. Seconds after the big bang.
That’s most hydrogen.
It’s never been fused into heavier elements just still sticking around and caught in the planetary part of the solar system rather than the sun itself. Or any previous suns.
There’s some helium like that but most helium was formed inside suns later, and heavier elements all formed later in suns or supernovas.
VLC
Exceptions are possible. Money isn’t everything for everyone.
Is the internet scarier?
Or is it just millennials and “internet natives” having kids and more of them knowing better what the internet actually is.
I tell people to imagine a public place with everyone in it, the majority wearing masks or costumes. With constantly recording surveillance. Do you take off your mask.
Sure the mask is not perfect protection, and there are areas off to the side where people seem to not be wearing masks. But go ahead and choose a way to keep your kids safe.
If they cite one of the few things Freud is right about, it might not be awful. But better to cite the person who actually has a peer reviewed paper and proved it. Probably a red flag they they haven’t studied properly I’d it’s not buried under copious other citation.
Anyone with a main citation from Freud these days is a century behind.
People have the option of bashing their head against a wall as a patient. Someone should probably try to stop them doing that. Therapists especially. Quacks won’t and that’s the problem.
It’s amazing you’re concerned about a country with decent peer reviewed journals “biasing” articles and not the quacks who still cite Freud
The point is is anyone has a use for psychology they should pick someone alive to listen to instead of Freud.
Because it doesn’t matter if he got some things right when he got lost things wrong.
But I’m glad we at least agree no one should be using what he says as medicine.
Please read the articles on Wikipedia yourself, they’ll be a good starting point for you as they’re usually very balanced. Unlike the other material you’ve read.
You’re just being silly now. Urban designers do not have patients.
Victorian is a description of the time period. It is factually accurate. If you want to infer something else from the word Victorian then I can’t stop you but you’ll be wrong.
“Victorian engineering”, “Victorian Science” and “Victorian medicine” will definitely have different connotations.
“Victorian science” has the connotation that, unlike say Darwin, it’s not considered part of the modern consensus.
You should not learn Victorian science or medicine in the modern day outside of a history class.
Evidence based medicine that relies on evidence even 50 years old should be re-examined. Let alone 130.
From the article you posted.
“For example, meta-analyses in 2012 and 2013 came to the conclusion that there is little support or evidence for the efficacy of psychoanalytic therapy, thus further research is needed”
“In 2017, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials found psychodynamic therapy to be as efficacious as other therapies, including cognitive behavioral therapy”
So low to no effectiveness, trying to reach a low bar of another “treatment” which is in question.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy#Criticisms
The fact is Freud is right except in the majority of what he’s said and done.
Mental health is health.
If you’re practicing medicine and are not medically trained or supervised by someone medically trained you’re in the same bracket as quacks.
Quacks who read Freud and implement his Victorian ideas when we know them to be false are a problem.
That’s why it’s important to discredit old ideas, whoever they’re from.
Old mistaken ideas in science are the most credible and often the most harmful pseudoscience.
Freud shouldn’t be studied outside of a history class these days.
Ideas of his which have survived scrutiny will still exist. He may get passing mentions. But he really needs to be out of focus in the academic and public perception of the subject.
In general an unsupervised psychologist is not a good thing. Those capable of becoming or having their practice enforced by a psychiatrist have a place.
Those still practicing psychoanalysis with no medical training do not. Especially if they don’t recognise that Freud was more often wrong than right.
Psychologists who are academic only are the ones discrediting Freud, or they’re peer reviewed and told their wrong themselves.
Mental health has a huge problem with lack of professionalism and regulation in practice.
Fl. Oz are actually nothing to do with weight. They are volume.
For each fluid oz. use 30 ml
It’s only approximate but the official measurements for nutrition actually do it in the US so it’s not a real unit anyway anymore.
Yes, but your country being unable to have sensible judicial selection and poor judicial elections is not an argument for anywhere else.
The US ranges from failure to bad.
Other countries range from the good to the point other countries refuse to replace their own court system in order to continue using the good judiciary that’s trusted internationally.
Using the US as an example to follow in this case is a bad idea. Even if removing selection from the US system would be an improvement, it isn’t relevant anywhere else.
Especially when discussing an ideological law like making elections compulsory.